Fountain Maintanance

We have a 84 unit association in Toledo,Oh.
At our last meeting a non pond owner ask that future repairs to the fountain be voted on by members for repair expenses..
We all knew when we bought here that the maintenance of the pond will be paid by the association.
Only 15 of the 84 units have pond rights.The pond owners also paid 10-25-k more for there lots!
They understand the water retention pond is necessary and must be kept clean but, they feel that they should not have to pay for fountain expenses if they can not enjoy the view.
We have two bubblers and the fountain in a 1.5 acre pond.

Any thoughts???

Seems to me it depends on what your CC&Rs say and how the Board interprets it.

Probably the fountains are a "common element" and probably the association is required to maintain the common elements. Probably also there is a defined way to divide the costs. You can't change that without a vote.

You might want to point out that taken to its logical conclusion this reasoning leads to absurd consequences (that is, people near the entrance won't want to pay a share of maintaining the roads past the end of their driveway).

Actually, the HOA should have fountain maintenance as a regular budget item. It can't be easily separated and voted on. Besides, the other property owners would not maintain the fountains as they'd decline, by vote.

Maintaining amenities collectively so that a minority of home owners benefit creates these situations. I'm assuming the other property owners do NOT have access to sit by the pond or, otherwise, enjoy it.

Your covenants dictate the rules. If the fountains were established by those who created the sub-division, then tough luck. But, is the pond private-access to the exclusion of most of your property owners in terms of usage if not for view?

Also, did the fountains come as part of the HOA's amenities when the community was created and organized? If not, then a board at some point may've voted itself fountains to benefit the few at the expense of the many. If the developer designed the fountains into its plan, I'd say "tough."

HOA's like to argue that decorative fountains carry scientific benefits. It all depends. Been there

I've never heard of homes being more expensive around a retention pond - so this must be something else.

Is it a lake? Are there boats/swimming taking place or is it a natural wetland?

The pond is part of a water system that keeps all of the streets and lots from flooding during rain storms. It will be considered association property thus becoming common expene and that means everyone contributes equally unless your governing documents (covenants) say otherwise. Read the part that says how expenses and responsibilities are divided but they probably say "equally" There should be no special rate for a water system that services all of the area but looks pretty for selective lots.

They understand the water retention pond is necessary and must be kept clean but, they feel that they should not have to pay for fountain expenses if they can not enjoy the view

Oops, I pushed the buttom to soon.... Do you think, the non-pond owners are right and the fountain itself should be maintained by the pond owners?

Yes PetunkaM, I'm a pond lot owner. Our pond lots run down to the water and no one is allowed to walk around the pond or cross another owners property with out their permission.
Non pond lot owners have NO pond access.
The pond and fountain and the aerators were installed by the developer and all of his developments have fountains.
This fountain circulates the whole pond. You can see the movement of water when it runs.
What started this was the fact that we replaced the fountain motor this spring at a cost of 5-k.
In the three weeks it was down you could see the algae and weed growth multiplying.

Robert,

I like fountains:-) I thought it was just ‘a view’ conflict. Well, perhaps the BOD should define ’maintenance’ in more accurate terms. If all the fountains were installed by the developer - and not enhanced- one could assume they are included in the maintenance provisions or, they should be? To compromise a little, your rules could further state that the lake fountain will run only x hours/day, which could be less expensive and easier on the engine, but I do not know that ether. In any event, without knowing what your covenants say about all this it is difficult to say whether the owner requesting a vote is right.

RobertG still hasn't said whether the fountains are a common element or not.

There is only 1 fountain. In addition there are 2 aerators(bubblers) to control algae growth.
The developer designed the pond into the development with a 3 foot stone perimeter around it and grass up to the houses.
It is a common area as all 84 units benefit from it when it rains. The development could not exist with out the water retention pond...
All owners knew of the pond and the importance of it when they bought their lots. As I stated before. The view and access enjoyed by pond lot owners came at a 10 to 20-k premium lot price.
They also knew that pond maintenance was to be shared by all 84 units even though non-pond lot owners have no access to the pond.
This question only arose because of two disgruntled non-pond lot owners,Even though they have been invited(and accepted) numerous times to have drinks and enjoy the pond with myself and a couple of other neighbors.
I have an open invitation to all residents to bring their grand kids to fish with the poles on my back porch. Its not like there is a hostile environment here..

I was just hoping to find a document that stated that the fountain maintenance was not a debatable expense.

Unfortunately, Robert, these issues are very association specific. And, even if the documents are crystal clear, when it comes to money, things can take on a different color. Gosh this expense is less than $100/unit and probably does not come up every year. Sorry, there is no ‘apply to all’ answer.

The 5-k expense this year was the first major cost in 6 years. This pump has a 5 year warranty.

Robert - I'm not reopening this topic other than to say that I was browsing my own covenants the other night and literally stumbled upon a provision, for my neighborhood, that regulates situations like having fountains/ponds where all residents cannot enjoy them. Our covenants label such amenities at "Limited Common Areas" and our community is to assess only those property owners who enjoy the limited-access amenity for that particular piece of maintenance. Pond infrastructure repairs, like erosion control, would be covered by all property owners. The fountains and bubblers would fall on the property owners w/ direct benefit - which is obviously those who paid for their water lots. Nonetheless, each case is different and I'm sure you'll find your solution.

I found it very interesting and helpful because you never know when you'll find yourself in the same situation.